Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Pickens writes "The Palm Beach Post reports that a police officer convicted of drugging and raping a family member will get a new trial because the jury forewoman brought a Wikipedia article into deliberations. Broward Circuit Judge Stanton Kaplan declared a mistrial after Fay Mason admitted in court that she had downloaded information about 'rape trauma syndrome' and sexual assault from Wikipedia and brought it to the jury room. 'I didn't read about the case in the newspaper or watch anything on TV,' says Mason. 'To me, I was just looking up a phrase.' Judge Kaplan called all six jurors into the courtroom and explained that Mason had unintentionally tainted their verdict and endangered the officer's right to a fair trial. Mason does not face any penalties for her actions."

This is actually a non-story. You just can't DO that, in ANY court. No newspapers, encyclopedias, nothing like that. Thanks to that one dumb juror, Broward County just wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.

I guess you have to partially fault whoever gives instructions to the jurors, as well.

Jurors are supposed to ask the Judge if they are unclear on a definition or term used. The Judge will decide what outside information is acceptable. This was a mistrial because the Juror went out on her own to find the information rather than through the proper channels.

You are normally asked whether you know that type of information (although they might go too broad and ask if you're a doctor, instead of asking if you have knowledge of rape trauma). If you do, you are normally dismissed. If this does not happen, that's the fault of the lawyers. This is true for most types of technical knowledge related to a case.

The issue with looking up information away from the courtroom is that the judge, defendant and prosecutor are taken out of the loop. They have presented the evidence that they feel is appropriate, they've argued with each other about what is relevant or not, and so on. If a wikipedia article is relevant, then the attorneys and judge need to be involved in deciding this. The defendant has the right to be presented with ALL EVIDENCE against him. How can you present some rebuttal evidence that a reference article is wrong if you don't even know that the jury is secretly using outside information?

Basically just ask the judge for the definition. One will be provided that has been vetted by both sides of the case.

Technical knowledge about the background of a case does NOT always get someone dismissed from a jury. This is because the attorneys on both sides of the case have a chance to question these people and decide if their technical knowledge is going to taint the case or not, and during the trial they can present evidence to help persuade a juror. Even someone with knowledge of rape trauma could get on such a jury. What matters more is if either side feels you are biased because of this knowledge.

The only jury trial I was selected for had about half the members being related to law enforcement, including a retired parole officer, despite common knowledge that such people are automatically dismissed... During selection process on other trials I have seen many people chosen for a jury that violated a lot of common knowledge about who is or isn't selected.

You would think so. Each side (prosecution and defense) get to dismiss jurors. Generally, the lawyers like to have complete control of everything in the case - they want to define what (for example) 'rape trauma syndrome' means according to their expert witness so that it better fits their case.

Having a juror with prior knowledge of a relevant subject will probably be to the detriment of at least one side of the case, so those types of people are regularly dismissed.

The simple answer is this. If you don't know, and you are not getting honest and complete answers from the judge or the prosecution, then find the defendant not guilty. The life long impact of finding someone guilt of a felony should not be tossed around as something that can be risked on an innocent person. Especially in a sex crimes case where the sentence is a life long one for being put on the public sex offenders list.

Here's my problem with that argument, it is the jury's job to be the arbiter of fact in the case and the judge's job to be the arbiter of law. Having the judge be the gatekeeper of fact puts way to much power on the side of the state and upsets the balance that was supposed to be the cornerstone of our democracy. The idea was never to have an ignorant jury dictated to by the courts, rather the expectation was that the jury would be well educated and intelligent (Jeffersonian Democracy), what we have these d

I'm more disturbed by the fact that a juror taking a case seriously enough to want to learn more about the technical aspects would be vilified by anyone. It may have been against the rules, but an educated jury is certainly not the sort of thing we should be discouraging, despite what lawyers may believe. The information may have been erroneous, but that's why there are 12 people in the room to begin with; to hopefully counteract the stupidity of any one member. I think finding some sort of middle ground would be in the best interest of society as a whole. I don't see any reason why we can't make approved reference material available to a jury unless we really don't give a shit about the people on trial, but only the expediency of pseudo-justice.

It seems like you are trying to paint a picture where juries are asked to make decisions in a vacuum of knowledge. You don't see any reason juries can't have approved reference material because there is no reason and juries do have access to such materials as it is!

That approved reference material is called "evidence" and "testimony".

What this juror did in this case was to go outside of those approved reference materials and to the worst possible sort of reference!

It wasn't cited, the jury foreman was unsure of a specific phrase and used wikipedia to look it up. Honest mistake. Her proper course of action probably would have been to ask the judge to provide some literature about it instead of going out on her own to get it.

I would never cite wikipedia, but it is still an effective tool while doing research.

I was recently selected for jury duty. I was informed outright that I was not to speak about the case as expected, but the judge also warned that I was not to use the internet to do any sort of research on the case, and that all questions should be passed to the bailiff.

They are not allowed to look up material about the case. The definition of a term in general may or may not be about the case. That's a complex question of law. Say for example this rape occurred on an "Ottoman" and a juror looked up what that word meant...

They are not allowed to look up material about the case. The definition of a term in general may or may not be about the case. That's a complex question of law. Say for example this rape occurred on an "Ottoman" and a juror looked up what that word meant...

Frankly I think the judge over reacted by declaring a mistrial.

If that juror looked up "Ottoman" on Wikipedia and someone had decided to troll the hell out of it by replacing the content of the page with a snippet of the BDSM page and this picture, [wikipedia.org] that could be a problem.

The rules exist not because things like that happen constantly, but because they can happen. Excepting the rule on a circumstantial basis exacerbates the inevitable probability that such an exception is the wrong decision.

Rathering "ten guilty men go free than one be wrongfully imprisoned" and all

but you can turn that around. You ask the judge "what's an ottoman?", and he can tell you that it's the BDSM thing, because he wants to see the defendant found guilty. This is the risk of allowing a single person to be the final arbiter of 'truth'. Yes, I know that the defence could appeal the decision to give that as a definition, and even work their way all the way up through the courts, but that's still only about 20 people, at most. If the judges at the very top are as corrupt as, or in collusion with,

The point is not having your decision BIASED by public hearsay. Its accepted you come into court loaded with imperfect understanding of facts and concepts. But permitting people to look things up on the internet DURING a trial is pretty much the same as allowing the juror's decision to be coerced by Fox News or a mere website.

Yes they are. But they aren't part of the government and don't have the right friends. They aren't part of the elite in terms of education and upbringing. They don't read the same newspapers as lawmakers, do the same activities. In other words they offer a genuinely different perspective.

A person trained in law by the very sorts of people that made the laws would not offer that check on government. I'm very thankful for juries.

The justice system is not a joke. If I was on trial I sure as hell wouldn't want the jury looking things up on wikipedia. As accurate as wikipedia is as a whole, there are still articles that are biased, incomplete, lack citations or any combination of those.

No, one would prefer a jury be informed by the testimony of an expert witness who has been accepted by the court as having credentials and experience in the field and not a bunch of guys int heir basements edit-warring over an article or page on a subject they have no direct research experience in.

Having never actually served on a jury, how exactly would a juror go about learning what a phrase means if everyone was acting like it's supposed to be common knowledge? Do they just, like, raise their hand and ask?

I've served twice. If something came up we wanted more information on, we'd ask the bailiff, during a break, and he/she would pass the request on to the judge, and the judge would address it in some way, either with a description or by bringing someone in.

In my first trial, they had brought in a piece of defective equipment as evidence. During a break we felt that we should have a better look at it, so we asked, and were then allowed to go right up to it to inspect it in detail. This up-close inspection allowed us to come to a decision quicker.

Assuming we're talking about a criminal trial, then you find "not guilty". It's the prosecution's job to prove the case. If they didn't, then they lose.

A civil trial is less cut-and-dry, but the same basic rule holds -- the plaintiff needs to prove his case. If he doesn't, then he doesn't win.

If they falsely assumed I have a clue while I don't?

Your lack of clue is actually part of your oath as a juror, to only consider the evidence provided to you in the courtroom by the lawyers under the observation of the judge. If they falsely assume you have a clue when you don't, that is their problem.

In addition to Hymie!'s answer above you can also ask the Baliff who will pass the request on to the judge. The judge will then explain or find a way for it to be explained to you, sometimes needing to confer with defense/prosecution. At no point is doing original research as a juror and deciding for yourselves what sources are admissible in court or not an option. How would you feel as a defendant if someone convicted you because a Wikipedia entry was slightly incorrect that day and your lawyer didn't e

Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.

No, I want my defense team educating the jury rather than an anonymous edit on Wikipedia. I would also expect the prosecution to be fact-checking everything my defense team says, and the reverse would also be true.

This way, the only things that the jury learns are things that both sides agree are facts. Or, if it is something that is in disagreement, the jury learns that something is not a fact, but a point that one side says is true while the other side says it is false. This is core to the American justice system.

If they had to look something up on Wikipedia, then the defense team did a poor job. Thankfully, the justice system accounts for this & allows me to appeal with a new defense team.

Sorry , but since when are lawyers experts on every possible area? Would you trust a lawyer to give someone the inside on computer hacking? No. So the lawyers just repeat parrot fashion what they've found out from somewhere else - possibly wikipedia.

Sorry , but since when are lawyers experts on every possible area? Would you trust a lawyer to give someone the inside on computer hacking? No. So the lawyers just repeat parrot fashion what they've found out from somewhere else - possibly wikipedia.

Of course not. That's why you'd hear from an expert witness [wikipedia.org], you know, someone who testifies under oath and who both the defense and the prosecution agree can speak authoritatively about the subject at hand.

This way, the only things that the jury learns are things that both sides agree are facts. Or, if it is something that is in disagreement, the jury learns that something is not a fact, but a point that one side says is true while the other side says it is false.

Isn't the entire point of a jury to decide what is fact and what is not? A juror that has the wherewithal to do his own research is going to be better prepared to do that.

The real reason juries aren't allowed to do their own research is because controlling the fact presented to the jury is one of the few ways the judge can control the jury. Judges will even exclude fact, that both sides agree are facts, because it might lead the jury to make a decision the judge disapproves of.

Sure, they dress it up as fairness. As if the truth could be prejudicial. If that were actually the case, we'd have judges ruling on what sort of evidence scientists can consider before they make their conclusions. No, the only way to make correct decisions is to weigh *all* the evidence.

Consider the "Exclusionary rule". It's intended as a deterrent to keep cops from presenting evidence illegally obtained. But to enforce this rule you must have tight control over what the jury knows. But we already have a deterrent for when people break the law. Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule, and so you no longer need to control what the jury knows. So you have better behaved cops, and better informed juries. It's a win for everyone.

Consider the "Exclusionary rule". It's intended as a deterrent to keep cops from presenting evidence illegally obtained. But to enforce this rule you must have tight control over what the jury knows. But we already have a deterrent for when people break the law. Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule, and so you no longer need to control what the jury knows. So you have better behaved cops, and better informed juries. It's a win for everyone.

The fear of having evidence excluded is probably a lot more effective as a deterrent for bad cops than the (non)risk of eventual prosecution if caught doing something illegal.

The fear of having evidence excluded is no deterrent at all. If you don't do an illegal search there is only one possibility, you will have no evidence. If you do the illegal search, there's at least a chance of getting the evidence admitted. Without a real punishment for cops when they break the law, there is no deterrent for illegal searches.

You say that like the juror had no other means of research. She could have requested material from the judge. That is the right way to do it in a trial.

It's not that easy. For one thing, 11 out of the 12 jurors can't do that -- they have to convince the jury foreman to do that for them. And they can't do so anonymously. They have to admit their ignorance to 11 others, and then convince them that it's needed, and face the scorn of those who get irritated because it's going to hold them up for longer. I.e. an immense peer pressure.And finally, they get one shot. They get a lecture that may or may not be what they wanted, and no chance to ask the expert

I would most definitely want a jury that was intelligent enough, and curious enough, to both desire and act on that desire to understand exactly what is being talked about in court.

To tell the truth, I don't see how researching terms used in court, so the implications of phraseology used by lawyers during the trial are fully understood by the jurors themselves, taints a jury. That isn't irresponsible or an attempt to defeat justice. It is, in fact, just the opposite. It's an attempt to make sure justice

I hope the decision was not made just "because it came from wikipedia". I would look up the references, if the references are valid and from a trustful source (who decides that anyway), the jury decision shouldn't change, right?

Bringing up ignorance on a subject is actually a good thing. Personally I'm worried no one else wanted clarification. The judge should have let her know that the information she looked up may not be correct and supplied the jurors with the correct information to make their decisions. On top of it all this guy was already apparently convicted so why is this even in court?

Maybe you haven't had much firsthand experience with it, because I can assure you, it most certainly IS a joke.

The system does not work how we learned it is supposed to work in school, nor does it work the way you see on TV.

I went through a year long legal process over custody of my child, and I had seen friends and family have to deal with various aspects of the system. It's completely ridiculous, unfair, and not at all what the law specifies it is supposed to be.

No, but a Wikipedia page could potentially have been modified by the prosecutor or the defense. IANAL, but perhaps if the juror had brought in a volume of Encyclopedia Britannica, things would be different.

No, only a jury that follows the rules is a fair one. If you have a question or need more clarification on terminology, you ask the judge. The judge then takes responsibility for making sure the information you get is reliable, rather than some shit you found on the internet.

No, only a jury that follows the rules is a fair one. If you have a question or need more clarification on terminology, you ask the judge. The judge then takes responsibility for making sure the information you get is reliable, rather than some shit you found on the internet.

Um, yeah, that's assuming the rules are fair and those administering it are fair. More often than not, they treat juries more and more like caged tourists, to be shepherded around and shown only the correct sites and the real stuff hidden in the background. This applies to jury selection and why judges and prosecute flip out at the phrase "jury nullification" because it shows a modicum of thought independent of the system.

Sometimes, instead of trying to pick out a most sterile jury possible, I wonder if a random selection of the available pool, sort of like/. mod selection, would be preferable. I also have to wonder about jury deliberation though, too much group dynamics and peer pressure... just as an experiment, it would be fun to put two jury boxes of 5 or 7 people on opposite sides of the room -- so the lawyers can't play up their drama as much as if they had a single unified audience and if at the end of the trial, both juries come to the same conclusion, that is the verdict. Different levels of crime would require the simple majority within both juries, some a super majority, and some unanimous.

The judge then takes responsibility for making sure the information you get is reliable, rather than some shit you found on the internet.

That doesn't always happen. My last jury stint involved a trial with more than one defendant and an invocation of the so-called "felony murder rule". The judge wanted each jury member to affirm that they would treat the felony murder rule as Gospel, AND made this demand WITHOUT any detailed discussion of its value or history. When I specifically asked for that, the judge flatly denied my request. So I did what any freethinker would have done: during lunch I "broke the rules" using the court house's free wifi and researched the felony murder rule on my Pocket PC.

Given my experience I'm not inclined to fault this woman for what she did, even though she was more surreptitious than I was. She likely figured the judge would have simply denied such a request, as the judge did mine. Our current juror system truly does favor ignorant valueless robots. I'm not happy at all making that observation.

That's precisely what I did (my shortest stint ever), BUT I couldn't even make that decision in the complete absence of information that the judge imposed. That was my point: the judge was preventing an INFORMED affirmation.

Because actually one of the purposes of the jury system is to act as a check on the ruling class. Refusing to uphold immoral or blatantly unconstitutional law is one of the major reasons to both having juries.

To find guilt, there must be an offense. For there to be an offense, there must be a crime. If the rules forbid something but you don't find it to be a crime, the defendant has no guilt, only a responsibility. Since the court isn't interested in your findings of responsibility, the only verdict to be rendered is not-guilty.

That does not lead to lynchings, it leads to an absence of lynchings. Jurors don't get to make up new rules to suit them (that does lead to lynchings) but they can and should disregard a

It's not about where the information comes from, it's about ensuring the defendant's right to examine the evidence against him. This is a critical part of due process, and if a juror brings outside information into the courtroom and bases their decision on it, the defendant will never have the chance to examine that information and respond to it.

Now, before you say, "But in this case, all the juror wanted was a definition of a word!", let me propose a hypothetical situation for you. Imagine that you are on trial for rape, and one of the jurors prints out the Wikipedia article on rape. It just so happens that the revision they've printed out contains an edit by some wacko that says "Any time a person has sex and then regrets it later, then the other person raped them." Now you have a juror circulating that bogus definition of rape around the other jurors, and you never get to know about it, so you never have the chance to tell the jury, "Whoa whoa, that isn't a legally accurate statement, and here's why." If the jurors had been forced to request such information from the judge, then even if the judge was stupid enough to print out a wikipedia article to define rape (which (s)he wouldn't), at least the defendant would know about it and could challenge it or bring it up to the jury.

Yes , because judges are omnipotent and know the answer to everything - oh wait , they have to go look it up too. I wonder where from?

No but the judge is in charge. For a jury trial, a jury has to decide only on the legal question of the trial. Juries have always been discouraged from doing their own research. Introducing other information may change the outcome of the trial and has the jury discussing topics not part of the trial.

For example if a jury has to weigh whether a defendant was deemed insane under state laws. Suppose a juror does his/her research on the matter and brings in information from other cases not introduced at tri

Do fill us in on where the judges would get this reliable information from. They have experts in every area on standby at the end of a phone? Or do they just an encylopedia , maybe , gasp , even wikipedia?

Wherever the get the information from, it becomes part of the record of the case and, if necessary, can be discussed by counsel before delivery to the jury or, at worst case, used as grounds for appeal by either side after the fact.

Keeping accurate records of everything the jury was told in order to form a verdict is very important, especially if some of it is later found to be inaccurate.

Do fill us in on where the judges would get this reliable information from. They have experts in every area on standby at the end of a phone? Or do they just an encylopedia , maybe , gasp , even wikipedia?

Wherever the get the information from, it becomes part of the record of the case and, if necessary, can be discussed by counsel before delivery to the jury or, at worst case, used as grounds for appeal by either side after the fact.

Keeping accurate records of everything the jury was told in order to form a verdict is very important, especially if some of it is later found to be inaccurate.

What about the facts rolling around in their heads prior to being selected as jurors? Isn't most research basically the same thing, just shifted in time?

If you are a defendant in a criminal case, do you want the evidence brought against you, the interpretation of the law that is being applied against you, and any questions that the jury cannot decide for themselves based that evidence and interpretation to be available in an accurate record that you can cite in an appeal, or in a juror's cellphone browser history that walks out the door and never sees the light of day?

Yes, it is a loaded question, because if you had any experience with the legal system, you'd know that details like the rules of evidence, jury instructions, and the trial judge's handling of jury questions/special verdicts are critical in the attempt to ensure that jurors make decisions based on reliable and complete information in accordance with the law of that jurisdiction.

Wikipedia's definition of the terms, even if generally accurate, will not reflect the statutes and judicial interpretations that apply in any particular jurisdiction. I will guarantee that the jury was given an explanation of the concepts applicable to the case in that jurisdiction either during the oral instructions, in a written version of those instructions, or by both methods. The lawyers and the judge went over those instructions carefully to ensure that they were correct, because if they were not that's a potential issue for reversal on appeal, even ignoring the fact that at least the judge wants the jury to make a decision on proper grounds in the first place. Any additional information that the jury needs is supposed to go through the same vetting process, and be recorded in a written record, to in order to increase the odds of justice being done both with respect to society and any individual defendant.

The Wikipedia information that the juror brought into deliberations wasn't going to appear in the trial record. So what would happen if it was wrong?

Question though. The Lawyers and the Judge are what we would call 'Domain Experts'. They are intimately familiar with the laws, concepts, and issues that will be introduced to the jury. The jurors are not Domain Experts. They are lay people. They may (and often are) of less educated back grounds.

If the judge and lawyers come up with the jury instructions as domain experts, I can say with out a doubt that the average jury will almost always have some portion of the members not understand, that forget, or rem

The [facts, education, and life experience] that the juror brought into deliberations wasn't going to appear in the trial record. So what would happen if it was wrong?

That's in the design, my friend. These are SUPPOSED to be thinking people. They were never, ever, ever intended to be unthinking robots only concerned with the law. If that were the case, the jury would be selected from amongst the bar, rather than from our 'peers'.

As others have said, there are rules when you're on a jury. The prosecutor and defense team lay out the "facts" as they both see them. You hear from experts on both sides who detail what they think happened (in their expert opinion). Then you weigh everything. Which side produced the most convincing argument. Did the defense's expert seem more reliable than the prosecution's? Or vice versa? If you don't know what something means or need clarification on some testimony, you send a request to the judge

So what makes a reference acceptable? I mean even the Encyclopedia Britannica contains errors or has entries that have changed / are out of date. And even the thickest dictionary doesn't contain all the words, for some things you just have to go to urbandictionary.com. I can't image many mainstream dictionaries having entries on a Dirty Sanchez, et al. while it could come up in a court..

In the end, I think Wikipedia should be an allowed reference source as long as _all_ (and not just from wikipedia) sources

So what makes a reference acceptable? I mean even the Encyclopedia Britannica contains errors or has entries that have changed / are out of date.

You're not allowed to bring Encyclopedia Britannica into jury deliberations either. No outside sources of information, that's the rule.

In the end, I think Wikipedia should be an allowed reference source as long as _all_ (and not just from wikipedia) sources are checked by the court later on.

The point is not accuracy, the point is to allow the court to control what evidence the jury has access to so that both sides have a fair shot at rebutting or clarifying anything that might otherwise hurt their case. The proper thing to do is for the jury to ask the judge for more information, and have the judge come up with with the encyclopedia article or other source deemed appropriate for the purposes of the trial, possibly in consultation with both the prosecution and defense.

So it's like the other guy said. The entire system is rigged to make sure the jury is completely ignorant.

Ensuring that the jury can't call bullshit on some bit of rhetoric or evidence is not justice.

No, the only ignorance here is what you are displaying. The jury has the right to request clarification on a term (in this case, they used the term 'rape trauma syndrome' in the court case and a juror didn't know what it meant) and then the judge, in consultation with the prosecution and defense, will provide the jury with the definition.

As others have mentioned, Wikipedia can often be very incorrect. But in addition when dealing with terms tied to technology or medicine, there may be many interpretations of meaning depending on who you ask. (As a programmer, I have a different definition of 'hanging process' than a lawyer does) It is important that the jury is understanding the terms used in the trial as the prosecution and defense are using them, and you can't do that with a quick hop to Wikipedia.

That's why the jury is not supposed to be relying on outside information. If the prosecution says 'rape trauma syndrome' means butterflies and rainbows, and the defense agrees with that definition, it's utterly irrelevant to the case what the real definition is, because that's not what the prosecution and defense are talking about.

Frankly, that is just a great way to have the judge (and whatever potentially lame ideas he has on issue X) pushed on a ignorant jury.

What if the judge thinks that 'rape trauma syndrome' is some made up condition? Or as tends to happen one side will put a 'expert' on the stand who may be full of crap about it and say whatever helps side X? Not allowing outside sources means only the aspect presented within the courtroom ever gets heard. That's like asking for bias.

Countering sources of factual information is probably the stupidest idea I've ever heard. And if true is probably why law is fucked up.

Those on the jury already bring in their own library of previous information 'sources' and their own opinions. While US courts seem to specifically try to find the dumbest asshats that have the least opinion on something possible, is a horrible way of doing things. It does make it easier for those lawyers to present their skewed view of the world on a jury though...

You're not supposed to look at any of those; you're only supposed to use the information given to you in court.

My understanding is that's not correct. You are only supposed to use the facts of the case as presented in court. Learning about terminology and/or phraseology used in the court, AFAIK, shouldn't cause a mistrial.

As someone else pointed out, Wikipedia is well known for incorrect information but I'm not really sure how that differs from someone walking about with an already incorrect and/or incomplete and/or complete ignorance of the definition/phrase/terminology.

But ultimately, judges are emperors of their own kingdom so they frequently get latitude to create their own rules. I have no idea of this is one of those situations or not.

If she had brought in a pages torn from volume of the Britannica it would have been the same

The point is not that it is from Wikipedia and so unreliable, it is that it is from anywhere that has not been approved as reliable enough by the judge or the defence and prosecution, anything can be brought into evidence however unreliable as long as all parties agree, and anything not approved however reliable can cause a mistrial....

You aren't just allowed to use information that was provided during trial, legal terms can be thrown around in court yet never get explained to the jury. The juror should have asked the judge for clarification about the topic, at which point the judge would have provided background material that was legally sound or at least neutral. Any reference material that wasn't cleared by the judge would have been equally bad, it's not just Wikipedia being singled out.

really? the whole thing is coming down? could have fooled me.I could have sworn that it's still going strong as a moderately reliable source of information which is vastly more accessible than almost any other in history.

You can't sustain an encyclopedia -- or any product of value, really -- in a culture of agenda-driven elites with no fear of losing their jobs if they err.

As opposed to people with fear of losing their jobs if they don't follow the boss' editorial line?

No encyclopedia is perfect; at least Wikipedia as the History and Discussion pages which help you to assess if there is an editor/contributor deleting valuable contributions because of his/her bias. That's more than you get with paid encyclopedias.

How can an encyclopedia taint a verdict? Isn't it the task of a court to understand the vocabulary used in a trial? And what would have happened when had read the article before the trial? Or even before the accused has done anything? However, I do not understand that jury concept in all aspects. As we normally only use two jurors beside one or more judges. And the jurors get prior training before working as jurors. But I know that is a little different in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Definitions when used for the purpose of law are not always the same as definitions in general speech.

It sounds more like this comes down to jurors using external references to assist in making decisions. I would expect that jurors are instructed not to bring in external references of any type, and she did.

I think the issue is that by seeking, reading and bringing to the jury room information on Rape Trauma Syndrome she was promoting the idea of the "alleged victim" as simply "victim". The jury were there to decide whether the accused committed the rape, it could be argued that the forewoman's actions prejudiced the jury in that decision. If she had read it before that's fine because she didn't know what case she was going to be on.

How can an encyclopedia taint a verdict? Isn't it the task of a court to understand the vocabulary used in a trial? And what would have happened when had read the article before the trial? Or even before the accused has done anything? However, I do not understand that jury concept in all aspects. As we normally only use two jurors beside one or more judges. And the jurors get prior training before working as jurors. But I know that is a little different in the Anglo-Saxon world.

If during the voir dire portion of the jury selection, it came out that any candidate for the jury had read anything about the term (in this case 'rape trauma syndrome'), they would have been excused.

One of the best ways to be excused from jury duty is to be well read, and be able to answer to your knowledge. It has pretty much been the reason why I have never been empaneled on a jury in my history.

Both sides look for different characteristics, but they unanimously want people ignorant of the facts and t

How can an online editable encyclopedia taint a verdict? You can't fathom how something that could be written to by either the prosecution or the defence during the course of a trial could taint a verdict?

Do we REALLY want a justice system where the jurists are encouraged to be ignorant?

When searching for "reference materials for juries" I came across numerous links to some of the most absurd things. One example of jury misconduct was listed as using a dictionary for the purpose of understanding a legal term.

When jurists actually want to know and understand what is going on and how things work, I am encouraged that the justice system "wants" to work as it was intended. But when I see the officers of the legal system blocking certain aspects and elements of the justice system, I have to feel disappointed and disheartened.

The definition in the dictionary isn't what the law is. Juries are supposed to render verdicts on the facts and the law, not on Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Britannica, Wikipedia or anything else. If this was a matter of state law, then the jury was given the relevant portion of state law that the defendant was charged with. If 'rape trauma syndrome' is a technical term relevant to the case, then expert witnesses are brought in by one or both sides and are questioned by both sides. The ability to bring thes

Well, if I'm ever called up for jury duty, I guess I would have to check my brain at the door. I read a lot of stuff about all kinds of shit in The Economist and also Wikipedia. I don't need a printed copy to recite what I have read.

Oh, I have been called up for jury duty. My mom called the number to explain that I live on a different continent: problem solved. When my dad was called up, he told me that both the prosecution and the defense would try to toss anybody with half a brain from the jury pool.

I just finished jury duty so this is all fresh in my mind. The jurors job is to determine if the evidence presented shows that the defendant violated specific laws. The judge lets you know specifically what the laws are and explains what they mean if it is too cryptic for a non-lawyer to understand. In the case I was in it basically meant that all 6 of us were used as human lie detectors to see which witnesses were the most truthful.
We were encouraged to ask questions if anything was unclear about the law, evidence or charges. Outside interpretations would have tainted the whole thing.

As it has come out in the comments below, the headline is plain wrong.

The judge declared a mistrial because a juror did something jurors are not allowed to do; bring outside information into deliberation. That the information in this case happened to be a wikipedia article is hardly relevant. In fact, it is a poor attempt to make a common "illegal stuff deemed illegal"-case interesting for it computer.literate.

Declaring a mistrial here was the only effective way to guarantee the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial, including the right to examine the evidence against him. There's quite a bit of jurisprudence on the use of expert testimony to make sure it's relable, and allowing the jury to just Google whatever they want for information just tosses that process out the door.

Imagine you've been falsely accused of child molestation, based on the faulty science of "recovered memories." Would you want the opportunity to challenge the evidence against you through cross-examination, or would you prefer it if the jury could just pull up some article written by a quack and be swayed by it, with no chance for you or your defense to explain the basic fallacies it contained?

Imagine you've been falsely accused of child molestation based on the fault science of "recovered memories". The judge considers this settled science, so your defense team cannot question the scientific basis of the evidence. (This happens all the time with fingerprints). Wouldn't you want the jury to be able to do some research on their own to discover that recovered memories are a load of shit?

I've been on a jury a few times (just lucky, I guess), and there is usually an expert brought in. Sometimes the prosecution can just get the psychologist or lab tech who is on staff to explain their measurement/diagnosis. The problem is, no matter how good the expert is, the prosecution MUST ask the correct questions or the jury is totally confused about the facts of the case. That is a major pain in the ass during deliberations. There are some people who, despite clear instructions from the judge, just

That if the prosecutor had withheld exculpatory evidence that the judge would not have done this?

The agents of the state can literally get away with "murder by state" (some prosecutors have actually successfully defended the prosecution of likely innocent men on death row), but a jury forewoman cannot research a technical term.

I'd be more sympathetic if the law actually stated that if a prosecutor violates any procedure in court, intentionally or unintentionally, all charges are dropped with prejudice (meaning they can never be refiled).